I have the opposite problem. I’ve been in dozens of jury pools and I have never been picked for jury duty.
But be careful of being too outrageous or obvious.
I have an 80% success rate in not being selected for a jury panel. My method is being honest in answering the questions they ask.
This makes me sad. I understand it’s a pain, and costly, but if you were on trial wouldn’t you prefer someone like you on the jury?
The judges I’ve dealt with are not really won over by hardship unless you have kids or are a sole provider who can barely do so. And Kkrose is right about voir dire, it’s a good way to start trying the case. So, if you have a legitimate personal issue with the facts in the case i.e., back injury and you’ve suffered from back pain all your life, let it be known. One side will cut you, but in the meantime, the other side will use you to develop their theme/theory of the case before you get to leave.
My method is to wear a science-themed T-shirt or sweatshirt (though, to be fair, this is generally my preferred way to dress unless someone is making me do otherwise) and sit quietly with a book until they call me. I’ve never gotten called up to answer the questions. I don’t know if the shirts have anything to do with this or they just got enough jurors without having to call on me. I have heard of people bringing obviously sciencey books to read to make themselves look less attractive for a jury. Don’t know if it works, but I’m pretty sure it can’t be illegal.
Replace the book with a pamphlet from the fully informed jury association (they discuss jury nullification) and you will never serve!
Around here the first summons lets you ask for a six month delay, no questions asked.
I’m not interested in being excused, myself, but I saw two good ways. The first was for a murder trial, where a prospective juror spoke very eloquently about how he didn’t trust the system or have any respect for it. He either meant it or was an excellent actor. The judge excused him. Wouldn’t work for most cases, though.
The second was a civil case where a woman was suing BART for being injured in an elevator. One of the prospective jurors was a mechanical engineer who had also served as an expert witness. He was asked if he could judge only on information presented, and he said that he couldn’t help but use his expert knowledge - so if the testimony was bull in his opinion, he would discount it. He got excused.
What didn’t work in the murder trial was opposition to the death penalty. No one who opposed it, even for religious reasons, got excused at the first two rounds at least.
That was my first time to ever get selected for a jury. I answered the question honestly. I did not go overboard in my reply. I WANTED to be chosen and I had no idea that answer would get me bounced. I also thgought they wanted people like me. But when I observed what people got accepted and what people got eliminated, I came to the conclusion that they were looking for neutral, bland, not-too-bright people whose opinions could be formed and shaped. Please holster your weapon.
I’ve found wanting to be on the jury will cause you to not even be randomly selected for consideration.
But could they say you were trying to get out of jury duty that way, and get you in trouble somehow? They can’t really prove that if all you’re doing is wearing a science-themed T-shirt and reading a book that has to do with science. They might suspect it, but they can’t prove it, since people do read science books and wear science-themed T-shirts for reasons other than trying to get out of jury duty.
I’ve never served on a jury and would’ve liked to. I lived here in Montreal for about 40 years as a non-citizen. I am now naturalized, but I suspect my lack of real French comprehension would get me off. But I am curious what would happen if it were a marijuana case and I stated–quite accurately, BTW–that I could not imagine any circumstance in which I would vote to convict someone of a marijuana offense. I assume I would be challenged, but is this contempt? It is my honest opinion.
Or wear a Constitution pin and then the prosecution won’t want you.
Either way it’s a win for you.
The irony is that I’m retired and I have plenty of time on my hands. You want me to serve on a jury? Hey, sounds like fun. Lets do this.
But the only two times I’ve been called up for jury duty, the trial was dismissed before it even got started and I was released.
Answer every question by clucking like a chicken.
Judges* love *that!
A DA-type person told me once that she wouldn’t want me on a jury. Too analytical. She said scientists are bad for prosecutors because we generally have a higher standard of proof than law does.
I have been on a jury once during my one and only time for jury duty. Apparently my occupation isn’t such a barrier after all. Also my area is probably crawling with sciency types so there is that.
Looking around the room during selection I thought I had a pretty good chance of getting selected. I looked at the arresting officer. Then I looked at the defendant. As the only non-white and non-black person in the room, I figured… I’m so on this jury. And I was. The bummer was I got picked as an alternate. Boo. All the time and none of the voice.
Oh, and all the voir dire stuff didn’t happen in a way that we could hear what other potential jurors were being asked. It was all quiet stuff up by the judge.
I was just getting jury nullification and the FIJA out there.
Our county allows us to postpone once, but then we have no flexibility when called back. So I’d rather fulfill my 2-day obligation now. Then they’re not allowed to call me back for 3 years.
I retired from the State of California, and State employees get paid for jury duty. Most of my coworkers HATED it with a passion, but judges and attorneys love State employees because they are paid.
I served on one jury. It was fascinating, and I wouldn’t mind serving again.
However…
(you knew that was coming!)
I am profoundly hearing impaired, and it’s a progressive impairment. The last time I was called, I tried to explain to the judge that if the Court cooperated with my impairment, I’d have no problem.
The judge must have been hearing impaired, because he didn’t pay any attention to what I said. He just phony-smiled at me, said, “You’re hard of hearing, aren’t you? You’re excused.”
So, I got a permanent deferment.
Justice may be BLIND, but she damn well better be able to hear!
~VOW
Scientists (who are generally logical thinkers) simply do not get picked, at least around here. In over ten years in a department with about a hundred faculty and grad students, not one of us has actually served on a jury.
Personally, the one time I was called, I didn’t even try to get out of it. I consider jury duty to be a great privilege. But no, they don’t want me.
Here’s what I plan on telling the next judge:
I certainly respect the important role of a jury in society. But I believe that the process is very flawed in the US, and probably leads to many incorrect decisions. All types of behavioral and psychological interactions are happening between the jurors during deliberation. These likely lead to many incorrect decisions. If these did not occur, it would be very difficult to arrive at a unanimous verdict amongst 12 people. I think a better process would be to disallow any discussion or interaction amongst jurors and then let majority vote determine guilt or innocence.
Pretty much my opinion as well and I served on both of the juries I got called in for :p.